Thursday, October 27, 2005

Do They Really Believe This Stuff?

I loved this, looking back at the minutes from the CRC's February 3rd meeting, which was attended, we see, by a representative from the Republican Party and somebody from Concerned Women For America, a radical rightwing lobbying group:

John had fabulous news on the legal front. He is filing a freedom of information act demanding that the BOE turn over the video. He is also sending a letter of liability (using the CCV letter on the health risks of homosexuality) to the BOE. This puts them on notice that if my 8 year old boy decides to be homosexual because of the flawed teaching of the MCPS, and contracts AIDS, they could be held liable. He is also preparing an injunction to ask for a stay of rolling out the curriculum based on the fact that the BOE did not follow their publised guidelines in releasing the curriculum. The liability letter can be leaked to the press. However, legal suits are expensive, which brought us back to discussing fundraising.

Never mind that they are planning their "last minute" lawsuit months in advance -- let me say that one part again, slowly:

This puts them on notice that if my 8 year old boy decides to be homosexual because of the flawed teaching of the MCPS, and contracts AIDS, they could be held liable.

56 Comments:

Anonymous said...

"We couldn't make this stuff up."

You don't have to, Jim. The teaching is false and may lead children astray with horrible consequences. CWA isn't radical. They're trying to hold back the descent of America into moral oblivion. You're the ones that want to radically change things.

Today we have Michelle Turner of CRC saying in a so called public statement:

.."Teach the Facts - a group that has spewed hatred towards those that do not believe homosexuality should be taught as normal and mainstream in public schools. TTF has become the front for GLSEN - Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network."

Today we have Michelle Turner of CRC saying in a so called public statement:

.."Teach the Facts - a group that has spewed hatred towards those that do not believe homosexuality should be taught as normal and mainstream in public schools. TTF has become the front for GLSEN - Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network."

How desperate can they get?

Should TTF say CRC is front for James Dobson and company?"

Dobson doesn't need a front. Peter Spriggs, an employee of his, is on the CAC committee. I'm sure CRC is happy to be associated with Focus on the Family. So, yes, please say that.

I'm sure CRC is happy to be associated with Focus on the Family. So, yes, please say that.

*************Dobson has said publicly:

"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage," Dobson said.

"It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth."

and

Sprigg has said and done:

“By placing children under the influence of homosexual teachers, mentors and even adoptive parents, society not only undermines the traditional family values that promote healthy child development, but it also increases the chances that children will end up adopting the destructive homosexual lifestyle themselves,” Sprigg wrote for the Family Research Council Web site in a piece called, “Homosexuality & Children: The Impact for Future Generations.”

In that same article he wrote that there is “compelling evidence that male homosexuals are far more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals.”

He also discussed the legal recourses for parents opposed to their school’s “pro-homosexuality propaganda.”

Sprigg has condemned anti-discrimination policies and trainings that include sexual orientation. He testified before the Maryland House of Delegates voicing his opposition to an act that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students from harassment in their schools.

****************...hmmmm I guess CRC would be fine with being associated with Dobson. We would expect no less for those that promote bigotry and hate.

"...hmmmm I guess CRC would be fine with being associated with Dobson. We would expect no less for those that promote bigotry and hate."

None of those quotes from Dobson or Spriggs promote bigotry or hate. They are either factual or represent a concern for the well-being of children. Most people would agree- it's strange what you pretend to be shocked by.

Of course, their comments show more concern for potential victims (general student population) than actual victims (students caught in a gay fixation) but you can't complain about that since you term any attempt to help them as "hate."

And, again, please associate CRC with the Family Research Council anytime. It'll promote their cause.

Oh, my, the descent into moral oblivion. Save me from CWA and their view of morals. I don't want my child taught hate and bigotry by self-proclaimed "concerned women."

And as to Michelle Turner- she can't seem to understand that loving bigots isn't going to be part of my agenda. I will not tolerate her and her group's homophobia. As to fronting for someone-Liberty Counsel, PFOX, CWA, FOTF- CRC is their little lapdog.

Anon-yes, by all means equate tolerance for hatred with true tolerance. However, that sort of ridiculous argument doesn't work here. If I support freedom- do I then have to support slavery, if I support civil rights, then do I also have to support racism? Free speech is not the same as tolerance- I defend CRC's right to speak but I stand firmly against their beliefs.

By the way, there is no book banning in my house- that is what CWA and its cronies do. My kids(with the exception I mentioned in an earlier post) are free to read books, newspapers and magazines with different ideologies. It is CRC that supports PABBIS and book banning- not me. I want my kids to be exposed to different political opinions and all sorts of literature-they are intelligent and can come to their conclusions. I am not going to toss my kids out into the street if they don't agree with me or have a different life than me. I think that is more the Phyllis Schaffley, Regina Griggs, Alan Keyes model(your side)

Also to Anon- whoever you are- you want to know about a TTF meeting and who went? Gosh, are you that interested in us? I just had a lunch meeting with my colleagues(not TTF) on Small Business financial review.A number of TTF members were at the Einstein College Fair(but we were not meeting there) and I had breakfast a few weeks ago in Bethesda with another TTF member.

I might be going to the movies this weekend and certainly grocery shopping. I will also be a greeter at services this weekend. Okay, is that enough personal info for you?

"Also to Anon- whoever you are- you want to know about a TTF meeting and who went? Gosh, are you that interested in us? I just had a lunch meeting with my colleagues(not TTF) on Small Business financial review.A number of TTF members were at the Einstein College Fair(but we were not meeting there) and I had breakfast a few weeks ago in Bethesda with another TTF member.

I might be going to the movies this weekend and certainly grocery shopping. I will also be a greeter at services this weekend. Okay, is that enough personal info for you?"

Andrea,

I was only interested in what group is giving you advice on handling the press and who was in on the meeting because I assume they're part of your shady leadership. I'm actually surprised Jim hasn't answered. He's usually more forthright- must be something ...never mind.

Now, what services are you greeting at this weekend? The Ethical Society?

"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage," Dobson said.

Dobson saying something doesn't make it the truth. Homosexuals are as likely to be monogamous when in committed relationships as heterosexuals are, and, for all we know, are more likely to be monogamous. A co-author of one of my books is an internationally renowned eye surgeon, he also is gay and has been in a monogamous relationship for more than 20 years...longer than more than 40% of all heterosexual marriages.

"It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth."

Given that there have been gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders since humans first walked upright, likely before the convention of marriage, it isn't likely that acknowleding and embracing people of different sexual orientations is going to destroy marriage. and it certainly won't destroy the Earth.

“By placing children under the influence of homosexual teachers, mentors and even adoptive parents, society not only undermines the traditional family values that promote healthy child development, but it also increases the chances that children will end up adopting the destructive homosexual lifestyle themselves,” Sprigg wrote for the Family Research Council Web site in a piece called, “Homosexuality & Children: The Impact for Future Generations.”

Dobson saying or writing that something is so doesn't make it so, and the same goes for Sprigg. Just because he writes it down, doesn't make it true. There is a mountain of research proving that children brought up in same-sex couple households are no more or less likely to grow up to be homosexual than children growing up in opposite sex couple households. Anon really ought to do more research before spewing such malarky. I would prefer my children not be taught by right-wing conservatives, but, alas, even they are allowed to teach in the public schools.

In that same article he wrote that there is “compelling evidence that male homosexuals are far more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals.”

This is utter, shamefull nonsence. Anon, do some real homework before you start repeating the hateful rantings of a troubled man.

Andrea, I suppose since there is no book banning at your house you would have been perfectly comfortable with all the books on that 'list' at Cabin John. You know, Sex by Madonna and the Joy of Gay Sex? Come on now, do you understand how extreme and ridiculous you sound when you make claims like that? Do you actually think that all of the liberals who live inthe County would defend their young children or teenager's right to read books like that? Have you ever read (or actually looked through Madonna's Sex book? It was sold from behind the counter in most book stores in the olden days - shrink wrapped.)

"Homosexuals are as likely to be monogamous when in committed relationships as heterosexuals are, and, for all we know, are more likely to be monogamous."

Don't think this is right. You might know a few people in the suburbs like this but that's probably why they're there. The vast majority of gays are promiscuous wherever it's widely accepted. This is why in Africa, where homosexuality is taboo, AIDS is a hetero disease while here in America it is almost exclusively a gay disease. It caught hold in the gay community because of widespread promiscuity.

Anon, I got a question for you. For the sake of argument, let's say gay people are terrible, evil, promiscuous, germ-spreading, smelly, unattractive ... Now the question is: what do you propose to do about it? Is your idea that they should stop being gay? Should they be exterminated, in your view? Locked up, maybe? It's clear you disapprove -- what, in your view, is the reasonable response to this menace?

What my religion is - is my business- although from some of my posts it should be obvious.

As to book banning- Marie- the point of that list at Cabin John(as I think you actually know) was not to suggest that kids read those books- Sex or The joy of Gay Sex- but those are on the list of the 100 most requested books to be banned- parents and kids were supposed to work together to pick a book, read and discuss. I would not consider it book banning if I did not allow my(underline MY) child of a certain age to read(and I don't know if Madonna's book had words so that isn't even reading) a book. If I thought my kids had something inappropriate, I would discuss it with them. My kids are of and almost of legal age and could read whatever- but their rooms and bookshelves are remarkably free of Madonna's book and Penthouse-I think more kids gravitate to what is secret and forbidden. I only wish I could have made them think calculus was dirty.

No, Anon, we're not here to be audited by you, and we don't have to tell the Internet who we met with. It was a very informal two hour class, and it was the only interaction we've had with those guys. We don't owe you an explanation, I've been perfectly honest and that should be enough.

I don't think you can answer my question. I think all you want to do is hate and pretend you're superior to other people, and I don't think you have even thought about how to solve this terrible problem you think you've identified.

So, come on, the question was "Do they really believe this stuff?" You imply the answer is yes. So come on, explain. What's your plan?

One of the anons mentioned our "shady leadership." I smile. What a quaint idea! I'm a member of TTF's board of directors. The by-laws require me and the rest of the bord to make decisiona about how our money is spent. The position is entirely ceremonial because we have no money. On the rare occasion when something we need comes with a price tag, we reach into our own pockets and pay for it.

But I DO like being a shady lady. Do I get to wear a mysterious hat?

Censoring children's reading... Oh yeah. Parenting is when you monitor and participate in your children's reading. Censorship is when you try to prevent anyone else's children from reading what you don't like.

My daughter read everything in the house. I'd ask her what she thought about the books she was reading and she told me. Sometimes she'd tell me it was stupid or wierd and I'd remind her that she didn't need to keep reading it.

Once we traded books. I was into reading Victorian travelogues and she was into babysitter's club. We both really hated each other's books, but we did keep our page-for page committment. I had to read three and a half BSCs and she only had to read one guide to the Sandwich Islands.

I remember that I started reading William Styron's "Confessions of Nat Turner" when I was nine. I kept finding the book back in the book case with my bookmark taken out of it. After a while I lost interest in finding my place again. Three or four years later I read it through and decided that the missing bookmarks had been my mother's way of discouraging me from reading the book. When my daughter began reading my books, I mentioned "Nat Turner" to my mother. She didn't remember a thing about it.

My older son read "Huck Finn" and "Tom Sawyer." He was upset by the word "nigger." He asked his dad if it was OK to use the word in a book. They talked about Twain and his times. My son connected the dots between racism and slavery. Every few days a new question or idea would percolate to the top and they'd talk again. My son decided that if people read the book now, the word will make them angry about how people treated blacks in Twain's time. He thinks that's a good thing. I pity the parent who is afraid to go through that proces of discovery with their own children.

If a book doesn't have a dragon, robot or alien on the cover, my younger son won't look twice at it.

"No, Anon, we're not here to be audited by you, and we don't have to tell the Internet who we met with. It was a very informal two hour class, and it was the only interaction we've had with those guys. We don't owe you an explanation, I've been perfectly honest and that should be enough."

Well, Jim, the reason I asked was that the CRC is saying you're associated with GLSEN. I was trying to give you an opportunity to tell the truth. I'm really surprised that you won't disclose who it was. I can only conclude that it's a group that you're embarassed to be associated with.

"I don't think you can answer my question. I think all you want to do is hate and pretend you're superior to other people, and I don't think you have even thought about how to solve this terrible problem you think you've identified.

So, come on, the question was "Do they really believe this stuff?" You imply the answer is yes. So come on, explain. What's your plan?"

I heard that the CRC was saying that. No, it wasn't GLSEN. You really shouldn't believe the stuff you read over there, they just make it up. They said we're a "front" for GLSEN, which is false and silly.

Don't think this is right. You might know a few people in the suburbs like this but that's probably why they're there. The vast majority of gays are promiscuous wherever it's widely accepted. This is why in Africa, where homosexuality is taboo, AIDS is a hetero disease while here in America it is almost exclusively a gay disease. It caught hold in the gay community because of widespread promiscuity.

First, the friend and co-author I referred to does not live in the suburbs. In fact, he and his partner of 24 years live in New Orleans, when they are not at their Aspen, Co. retreat. Another colleague and his partner of 10 years lives in Boston, Mass., and yet another associate and her partner of 19 years live in Indianapolis.

Regarding your AIDS statistics. If you're going to make a statement, why don't you look up the information first so you can be accurate.

"In 2003, heterosexual contact with an infected partner led to an estimated 79% of new HIV diagnosis, and 71% of new AIDS diagnosis." Avert.org, an international AIDs charity and information clearing house. So much for your theory that it is almost exclusively a gay disease in the U.S. or anywhere else.

"people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total."

here's another:

"However, since the beginning of the epidemic, the number of heterosexual infections has increased dramatically."

Hmmm...makes up 16% and thats a dramatic increase from when it appeared 25 years ago. Sounds like we can thank this one on a promiscuous gay community. I forgot to add, in addition to much higher numbers of partners, most gays have also participated in anonymous sex. You can't say that about most heterosexuals.

"During 2000–2003, HIV/AIDS rates for African American females were 19 times the rates for white females and 5 times the rates for Hispanic females; they also exceeded the rates for males of all races/ethnicities other than African Americans. Rates for African American males were 7 times those for white males and 3 times those for Hispanic males.

The leading cause of HIV infection among African American women was heterosexual contact; the next leading cause was injection drug use.

Of the 90 infants reported as having HIV/ AIDS, 62 were African American."

"Nearly 1 in 4 African Americans lives in poverty [14]. Studies have found an association between higher AIDS incidence and lower income [15,16]. The socioeconomic problems associated with poverty, including limited access to high-quality health care and HIV prevention education, directly or indirectly increase HIV risk. A recent study of HIV transmission among African American women in North Carolina found that women with HIV infection were more likely than noninfected women to be unemployed, receive public assistance, have had 20 or more lifetime sexual partners, have a lifetime history of genital herpes infection, have used crack or cocaine, or have traded sex for drugs, money, or shelter."

As the recent hurricanes have exposed to the world, Americans haven't done a very good job eradicating poverty in our own backyard, here in this wealthy superpower we call home. While there has been success in lowering the 2001 poverty rates for children and the elderly, the poverty rate for those aged 18-64 hadn't changed very much in the nearly forty years since LBJ waged The War on Poverty.

Perhaps instead of arguing, we should all work together to end poverty in this great nation so we can improve the lives of the neediest among us. In 2004, another 1.1 million Americans fell into poverty.

Anon, I don't know if you're the same Anon I asked this of a few days ago, or a different one. But it doesn't matter, I'll ask you.

Let's say your beliefs are right, and gay people are evil, promiscuous, germ-spreaders, and you've identified a serious social problem. The question is, what do you propose to do about it? Is extermination a solution? Should they be locked up? Should society be prohibited from talking about gay people? Should they stop being gay?

You have these beliefs, tell me what action follows from them. In my experience, these kinds of beliefs are simply a justification for bigotry. Enlighten me.

Ashamed -never - of any of my activism- last week, I stood with my daughter on Georgia Avenue in Silver Spring to mourn the death of 2000 American soldiers in Iraq. I am a strong supporter of democracy in Burma and of the Burmese people's democracy campaign here in the US and attend protests and rallies on behalf of the Burmese people. I have been involved in letter writing, donations and protests( we did the die-in in Lafayette Square well before Cindy Sheehan's last week) to stop the genocide in Darfur. I am supporting both Lois Murphy and Bill Casey in Pennsylvania in their elections. I also volunteer for several organizations- wild far-left places like our high school, Martha's Table, Luther Place and most recently- Warm-up America( crocheting and knitting for the needy-gosh, thate's somthing to be ashamed about- making blankets for the victims of Rita and Katrina).

What do you do, Anon, besides write crazy conspiracy ideas here and try to badmouth a group of parents who are working hard for something we think is important? Make fun of me- I don't care- at least, I have a story to tell of many years of activism and volunteerism. I am proud of that and so is my family

And speaking of ashamed-I always use my name and you don't-so that says a lot about both of us.

You all seem to be dodging the fact that I first pointed by shifting the argument around like a sand dune in the windy Sahara. Do any of you deny that AIDS was established in the US population because of the widespread promiscuity of the gay population in the late 70s? The fact that it is beginning to make some small inroads in the normal population is irrelevant. We still have the out-of-control behaviour of gays to thank for it.

I think some of you have young kids today convinced that all this current gay movement is a new breakthrough in attitudes. Actually, the country was at the same point in the 70s. There were gay characters on TV shows. I remember watching a Tom Brokaw special at the time about the Bay area community. He went to a public park where every night, thousands of gays gathered and had anonymous sex out in the open. He said, "Never in the history of the world has so much sex been available to so many men in one place at one time." Wow!

The whole country sobered up when the AIDS crisis started but there's no doubt how it was introduced and why.

I'm glad to hear it, Andrea. As TTF VP, could you inform us which organization came in and told you what to say to the press? We can already tell what they told you to say by doing a word search and finding out which phrases you keep using over and over. But what group was it?

Jim must think it's a really heinous group because he cannot bear to speak its name but I know you got the unashamed boldness to claim your friends.

Please do that word search, and publish the results here in the comments of one of these posts...

That will be really interesting, and will prove that we are parrots who say whatever some "experts" tell us to say. This will strike a deadly blow for your side, and send TeachTheFacts.org crawling away, humiliated.

I'm pretty sure. Because you are clearly on to something v-e-r-r-r-r-y important here.

Well, let's see, one Anon was supposed to produce a document from the APA in the 80's that countered the APA's statements from the early 70's and the present time about sexual orientation. We're all still waiting for Anon to produce that document to verify what s/he claimed is true.

Another Anon mentioned some items supposedly taken from a text book at Sligo. After one of our commenters asked for the title and author, that Anon has yet to provide the information so his/her claims could be verified.

There have been countless points made in these blog comments with promises of later discussions of them by Anons, only to have the Anons remain silent. And after all that, now you are making this big fuss over private TTF business.

Just like our bedrooms, you just can't keep your nose where it belongs, can you?

"Let's say your beliefs are right, and gay people are evil, promiscuous, germ-spreaders, and you've identified a serious social problem. The question is, what do you propose to do about it? Is extermination a solution? Should they be locked up? Should society be prohibited from talking about gay people? Should they stop being gay?

You have these beliefs, tell me what action follows from them. In my experience, these kinds of beliefs are simply a justification for bigotry. Enlighten me."

Jim

I only made a commitment to do this until the end of the month so this is my last day and I did agree to answer this question so here goes:

First of all, you changed this a little from the first phrasing but I don't think all gay people are "evil, promiscuous, germ-spreaders." I don't think they're necessarily more evil than others but there is a much higher incidence of promiscuity and anonymous sex. This did lead to the introduction of a lethal and, so far, incurable disease into the general population.

What do I propose to do about it? Absolutely nothing. No changing the definition of marriage. No school curriculum that justifies their behaviour. No laws making them a special class protected from social discrimination resulting from their behaiour.

I also would oppose criminalizing any act done behind closed doors. As long as they don't engage in public exhibitionism or corrupt young people, I think they should be left alone. I'm a libertarian and want the government to stay out of people's private lives. It's true that they are detrimental to society but I think their behavior lies in a class of behaviours, like lying, gluttony, alcoholism, et al that can't be solved by legislation.

"...a lethal and, so far, incurable disease into the general population.

What do I propose to do about it? Absolutely nothing."

You'd do "absolutely nothing" about a lethal incurable disease that effects the general population because of your judgment of how it began. You'd do "absolutely nothing;" there'd be no research, no treatments, no cures, no vaccines, no nothing. Members of the general population who come down with HIV/AIDS would just be left to die.

I think you realize this but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. When I said "absolutely nothing", I meant nothing to change the status of people with homosexual preferences. I do indeed believe that we should continue to search for a cure for AIDS.

Jim was baiting me with the question and suggesting that I might want to imprison and exterminate gays. He was asking what I wanted to do about gays not about disease. He complains about how me or CRC twists words never acknowledging that we are simply giving as we got.

OK Lightning, and thanks for the clarification. I want to be clear and not misconstrue your meaning here.

You said, "I meant nothing to change the status of people with homosexual preferences. I do indeed believe that we should continue to search for a cure for AIDS.

Jim was baiting me with the question and suggesting that I might want to imprison and exterminate gays."

First, let me point out a few things here. The "imprison or exterminate gays" thing and the search for the cure are two things we agree on, and that's a start.

Last, to be sure I understand your comment, I need to ask what you mean about the "status" of gays. Different states allow and/or limit different rights for gays. Are there certain rights that are allowed for heterosexuals like me that you believe should be denied to them? I presume marriage is one of them. What else do you think is proper for their "status" -- civil unions, certain jobs, the right to adopt children, etc.?

Thanks for clarifying again, Lightning. It's helpful to carry on a conversation when you know who you are talking to, which I do now....sort of. I appreciate your willingness to have this discussion and hope that soon you'll be OK with revealing who you are but in the meantime, I don't have a problem with your anonymity.

But I do have to ask how you reconcile two of your statements in this thread because they just don't seem to fit to me.

In your latest statement you said that you think gays "[a]re entitled to all the rights that any other citizen has. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. They have the same right to pursue it as anyone, but it's not a guaranteed right of anyone." Earlier in this thread you said you'd want "...No laws making them [gays] a special class protected from social discrimination resulting from their behaiour. I also would oppose criminalizing any act done behind closed doors. As long as they don't engage in public exhibitionism or corrupt young people, I think they should be left alone. I'm a libertarian and want the government to stay out of people's private lives. It's true that they are detrimental to society..."

What doesn't seem to fit to me is that on one hand you say gays are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, but on the other hand you say gays are detrimental to society and imply that certain public "acts" they may engage in should be criminalized and/or lead to social discrimination against them. We already criminalize in public many behaviors that are permissable "behind closed doors" -- nakedness, etc., and these behaviors are crimes regardless of the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. Are you saying there should be fewer acts that gay people can commit in public without leading to social discrimination or criminal prosecution than straight people? And if so, which ones?